The other deal-breaker for me is second-rate color rendition. Sure, colors look fine to 99% of the general public who buy this, but to a Colorist like me for whom color is everything, the colors don't sing anywhere near as well as they do on my Nikons or Canons. In fact, my iPhone 5 even has better color rendition.

I'm an artist. When I speak of color rendition, I'm speaking of how well the camera interprets reality, not laboratory accuracy. Lab accuracy isn't relevant to me — I just need the photos to look great! right out of the camera.

That's a lot even for his standards.

his "standards" are +maximum on saturation.and he is shooting JPG´s.

the guys a clown nothing more.

i guess 90% here know that... but i always find it dangerous to quote "ken "oh the colors" rockwell without making that crystal clear.

Full Disclosure - I get a kick out of reading Ken. I think many take him too literally, half of his stuff is meant in a satirical way and the other half is often not too far off. Most folks don't need most of the high end crap that is marketed to death every year by the big camera names. If people want to spend the high $$ because they can afford it, great. But honestly, if someone knows what they're doing, they can create great images with a rebel and a decent EF lens or two. D series bodies and L lenses aren't required. (Except for the 5Dc, that was a game changer for me and it won't break the bank either.)

That being said however, I also smirked when I was reading his comment (quoted above) about the color rendition, him being an artist, etc because I immediately thought the same thing as you: high saturation colors. However, that's his style. I don't fault him for it, that's just his thing.

He's so funny. His posts are entertaining. I donated $10 because he asked me to... feeding the growing family and all.

The other deal-breaker for me is second-rate color rendition. Sure, colors look fine to 99% of the general public who buy this, but to a Colorist like me for whom color is everything, the colors don't sing anywhere near as well as they do on my Nikons or Canons. In fact, my iPhone 5 even has better color rendition.

I'm an artist. When I speak of color rendition, I'm speaking of how well the camera interprets reality, not laboratory accuracy. Lab accuracy isn't relevant to me — I just need the photos to look great! right out of the camera.

That's a lot even for his standards.

his "standards" are +maximum on saturation.and he is shooting JPG´s.

the guys a clown nothing more.

i guess 90% here know that... but i always find it dangerous to quote "ken "oh the colors" rockwell without making that crystal clear.

Full Disclosure - I get a kick out of reading Ken. I think many take him too literally, half of his stuff is meant in a satirical way and the other half is often not too far off. Most folks don't need most of the high end crap that is marketed to death every year by the big camera names. If people want to spend the high $$ because they can afford it, great. But honestly, if someone knows what they're doing, they can create great images with a rebel and a decent EF lens or two. D series bodies and L lenses aren't required. (Except for the 5Dc, that was a game changer for me and it won't break the bank either.)

That being said however, I also smirked when I was reading his comment (quoted above) about the color rendition, him being an artist, etc because I immediately thought the same thing as you: high saturation colors. However, that's his style. I don't fault him for it, that's just his thing.

I agree with you here. He's very entertaining and clearly knowledgeable. I've learnt a lot from reading his articles, as I have done at this forum. Calling him a clown and other degrding things only says more about the person doing it. I haven't seen any of those guys displaying that deep knowledge about technoology and, more importantly, photography. I guess these people fit in the Category 0 as Rockwell explains it. This forum is normally very interesting but sometimes degrade into quite childish discussions which is a shame as it is mostly driven by the same people.

Really? At $2,800 without the $600 viewfinder I think your point is misplaced. Why wouldn't any camera with a 135 sized sensor put out 135 format IQ?

And what do you think was my point? Just asking.

Well, I probably misinterpreted the title, BLOWN away, you probably meant you are impressed with the IQ, but as I said, why would it not have the IQ of any other 135 format sensor? But as written, "BLOWN away", could be interpreted, especially in this Canon forum, as meaning Canon has been blown away by Sony, to which my answer is, for that money they are in a sector by themselves, and lets not be silly, you cannot escape the price of the RX1.

Either way, the output and size is what I would expect from that format sensor in a mirrorless body with a fixed lens, hence, I am not BLOWN away, or even that impressed, particularly given the price.

Now I understand your confusion. Yep I meant I was blown away by this IQ from a pocket size camera. I am just very impressed by how technology has progressed. Cost factor or not. To have a camera that I can slip into my coat pocket and get this IQ does impress (blow ) me away.

Is there anything else that can do this for its size?

Maybe you were blown away because you thought that camera size equals (technical) quality. In reality, it's the sensor size that equals (technical) quality (which in this case is full frame). If someone can stick that in a phone, it would output the same quality.

As an aside, I think Canon no longer has to fear Sony, it has to fear Samsung (with its latest photo gadgetry).

Calling him a clown and other degrding things only says more about the person doing it. I haven't seen any of those guys displaying that deep knowledge about technoology and, more importantly, photography. I guess these people fit in the Category 0 as Rockwell explains it.

from ken rockwell himself....

Quote

Someone with a decent portfolio is not an equipment measurbator. Someone with more cameras than decent photos just may be. People with websites teeming with technical articles but few interesting photographs probably are.

Do not under any circumstances deal with these people, talk to them, read their websites or especially ask them for photography advice.

be careful to not elevate KR beyond what he is, an opinionated forum talking head with an inflated sense of his own ability and a very skewed view of the larger landscape of the world of photography.

if you glean a bit of information from him then great! despite his own declaration of being the highest standard of photographer (an artist!) in reality he falls much farther down his own delusional rating scale.

as far as the camera goes...the images from the original link looked really great. but as a camera system i'm not sure what niche it really serves that another system doesn't already serve just as good but cheaper.

canon rumors FORUM

"Someone with a decent portfolio is not an equipment measurbator. Someone with more cameras than decent photos just may be. People with websites teeming with technical articles but few interesting photographs probably are.

Do not under any circumstances deal with these people, talk to them, read their websites or especially ask them for photography advice."